Any religious people watch the Wonders of Life last night?

.

Going back a few pages in this thread, I made a perfectly acceptable argument on the issue of abortion. This was completely ignored. So why would I continue with people who can't intelligently debate and just resort to insults?

[QUOTE}Abortion is a difficult issue, as either way harm is going to be caused to either the child or mother via either health or quality of life issues. But to look at it purely from a sanctity of life perspective sure the creator could have designed a method of reproduction that did not waste so many potential lives.

Also if you take the bible literally, God doesn't have to many issue with infanticide or genocide whether encouraging his followers sush as in:
"15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass"

Or getting his metaphysical hands dirty and carrying it out himself in:
"12:29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle."[/QUOTE]

For what it's worth I made a reply, I'm not going to so haughty as to say you ignored it, as posts can easily be missed.
But if I have your attention could you also reply to my point where I explained the second law of thermodynamics has no impact on evolution as life doesn't occur in a closed system, we recieve energy from the sun.
 
I'll reply to you even though you're just being an ass.

It's not a literal snake in the Bible. It has legs and it's hinted that Eve had sex or did something sexual with it.

It wasn't an apple that they ate from the Tree of Knowledge. That's how ignorant of the actual story you are.

I couldn't give a monkey. It's ignorance born from not wanting to waste my time 'studying' that drivel and coming up with all sorts of allegorical meanings from the 'story'. There are thousands of creation stories, all myths. You dig?
 
I did not 'bring you into this', zenf1 did...

I didn't see Zenf1's post and in any case he did not imply anything about any opinion I may or may not have. You did and I asked you not to in future, it was a simple request and not one open to debate.


Only I didn't call you a pedant, I said the view that you can't use OT verses against Christians (which I'm sorry IS a point you've made many times before as proved by the images of your quotes I posted) is, in my view an “academic, pedantic view”. As someone who proclaims to be a linguist you should be able to see the difference between saying a view someone holds is ‘x’ and saying someone is ‘x’.

You stated that my opinion is synonymous with an academic view that you also stated was pedantic, therefore as I said, you made a veiled insult by way of association. And as a linguist I understand the use of the term pedant and its variants within common English and that it has a negative connotation and therefore can be construed as an insult on the person or opinion (and by the association the person whose opinion that is) to who it is applied. You may think that the scientific view of the languages, contexts and methods used in the Bible and the arguments based on that evidence are pedantic and so on, but any opinion I have proffered is by and large very broad and I try to make it as easily understood to the layman as possible, anyone (and there are a few) who have wished to discuss things more formally have done so privately. In any case this is irrelevant as I asked to you simply to not to imply what my opinion might be and that really should be enough.

Furthermore you keep acting mad because you imply I mis-represented your views and yet you haven’t been able to clarify them or show me where what I said went against stuff you said in the past.

I am not mad, I simply would like you not to imply my opinion and I have clarified my position on the subject so many times that it is clearly pointless to continue doing so, which is why I have not engaged in the recent religious threads other than very briefly. We have this discussion over and over again and it is patently apparent that you either do not want or cannot understand the explanations regarding the relationship Christianity has with the Old Testament and the Five Great Covenants and so on. You appear to have some time on your hands and are able to search through the forum looking for quotes so I am sure you can find the explanation.

For someone who castigates others for ignoring evidence and science you seem reluctant to take your own advice.

Anyway, I have no interext in discussing this further, not that I have any in the first place, so politely I ask again for you to leave me out of this discussion, thankyou.
 
Originally Posted by Kamwah View Post
I'll reply to you even though you're just being an ass.

It's not a literal snake in the Bible. It has legs and it's hinted that Eve had sex or did something sexual with it.

It wasn't an apple that they ate from the Tree of Knowledge. That's how ignorant of the actual story you are.

Says you...So what you are doing is openly interpreting the story, not actually reading and taking the story literally as it is laid out in the book.

What makes you believe that the story is meant to be taken in your interpretation and not the simple interpretation.

For me its pretty simple, Do as god commands or he shall spite you. That is the cut and the shut of the story. Follow his rules or he will punish you.

That's an ideal story to sell a religion and force compliance. Not one of the different versions of the genesis story imply sexual intercourse with a serpent by EVE, from what I can see..

But anyway lets get back to nitpicking genesis:

Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

The sun is a star...?

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

Hm, so this doesn't sound very sexual. it sounds like theres a tree, a serpent and a pair of humans. One gives the other some fruit and as I said above, directly disobeyed god so he should Kill them. Except he does not.

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”

10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”

Gods meant to be everywhere, why would A, he need to ask where adam is, B, why would he need to ask if he had eaten the forbidden fruit? Surely he would already know. is it a trick question?

I could go through and rip apart every line, including cain getting cut adrift and being killed by someone, yet there is no other someone apart from adam and eve on the earth.

25 Adam made love to his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth,[h] saying, “God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him

But just before this,

we have:

19 Lamech married two women, one named Adah and the other Zillah.

So where the hell did these people all come from, if the Genesis is listing each child that eve had? Whos lamech and who bore him or his wives?

It just makes no sense.
 
Ok, whatever. I'm out, I don't need to explain the whole Bible to someone who just wants to spout crap.

Just Atheists wanting to argue and make themselves feel big.
 
Last edited:
That's why evolutionists have had many false claims debunked. Piltdown Man is one example. They deliberately attached the jaw of an orangutang to a human skull. That's deception.

Because Charles Dawson gained fame and most likely money by faking it, not to make people believe in evolution. He was a solicitor, not a scientist!

Also, it was found to be fake by... scientists who believe in evolution. It would make much more sense for a religious person to fake it in order to discredit scientists once it's revealed as such.

When evolutionists say they have witnessed evolution, what they mean is that they've seen micro-evolution. They certainly have not seen macro-evolution happening

IT'S THE SAME THING.

They certainly have not seen macro-evolution happening. Still, the evolutionists maintain that enough of these small changes and you'll eventually get a new specie. And you want to tell me that doesn't take faith? It's absurd to ever think that random mutations can create new information.

Then explain over 400 breeds of dog coming from the grey wolf. Different species, only the evolution has been sped up by the use of selective breeding.
 
Then explain over 400 breeds of dog coming from the grey wolf. Different species, only the evolution has been sped up by the use of selective breeding.

Don't want to back up Jason2 here but different breed =! different species.

Animals are different species if there is no possibility of their genes being mixed in future generations. All breeds of dogs can breed viable offspring with all other breeds (physical limitations aside).
 
That was meant to say sub species, my mistake. But the point still stands. There is a clear evolutionary path from the grey wolf to modern day dogs showing a huge change in physical characteristics.
 
That was meant to say sub species, my mistake. But the point still stands. There is a clear evolutionary path from the grey wolf to modern day dogs showing a huge change in physical characteristics.

Yeah but we've been down this road with him before, he just comes back with "but they're still dogs".

He's essentially making the crocoduck argument. Here's Jason2-a-like Ray Comfort making the same stupid point (and being firmly rebutted)...


Brilliant point made by Matt Dilahunty using Spanish & Italian. For those that can't watch it he says we know that Spanish and Italian came from Latin and we know there wasn't a day when a Latin speaking mother gave birth to a Spanish speaking child and an Italian speaking child. Both Spanish & Italian evolved over time into different languages but we can trace both back to Latin. I'd take it further and compare dialects to 'breeds' within a species (language).

A nice analogy of how speciation works I think.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't really matter as all ta happens is hat goalposts get moved.

God Botherer: There is no evidence of evolution!
Scientist: What about this experiment with resistant bacteria?
GB:That's just micro evolution, you stil haven't shown macro evolution.
S:What about this experiment with citrate metabolising e.coli?
GB: That's asexual reproduction o doesn't really count, it's just a different type of e.coli.
S: What about the peppered moth?
GB: Its still a peppered moth I need to see speciation.
S: What about this experiment with plants? Different species that can no longer interbreed?
GB: It isn't an animal though.
S: How about these two totally different types of stickleback tht can o longer interbreed, that's speciation.
GB: Its still a fish. You cannot believe it unless you observe it!
S: Did you observe God creating man?
GB: Stop insulting my faith!
 
Yeah but we've been down this road with him before, he just comes back with "but they're still dogs".

He's essentially making the crocoduck argument. Here's Jason2-a-like Ray Comfort making the same stupid point (and being firmly rebutted)...



A nice analogy of how speciation works I think.

I really like the last point, god may be infalliable but man isn't so how can you be sure your faith in god is right. Circular logic but still a different way of looking at it.
 
Haven't read the entire thread.

I just watched the programme.

It was good but I think he should've drummed home the point a lot more, that life is just a series of prolonged chemical reactions, some of which by chance developed reactionary mechanisms that lend to self-preservation and this process has never really stopped. In this way life is an inevitable consequence given the right conditions. Thankfully he did get to this by the end after skirting around a bit.

Glad to see the explanation of how life 'seemingly defies' laws of entropy was included too - the illusion of order at no cost.

Looking forward to the rest.

What it had to do with religion I don't know, other than quashing the ridiculous ideas associated with it like creationism as being a genuine contender for evolution. Still it's interesting to wonder where the universe came from. Very tough question, since even the concept of time and other such physical quantities are a manifestation of the universe itself. This aspect of religion, the (largely) philosophical question as to why/how this all ultimately came to be I have no problem with, it's interesting, but to base your thinking and practices on a delusional belief in an abstract idea is just truly odd.

Please don't be alarmed by the snake in my sig.
 
Last edited:
I really like the last point, god may be infalliable but man isn't so how can you be sure your faith in god is right. Circular logic but still a different way of looking at it.

That's like asking how much faith do you have in your faith, which is kind of redundant since by definition faith is complete trust or confidence. As demonstrated by the idiot in the video who so stubbornly won't admit/succumb to any doubt.
 
Haggisman, I tried debating with the atheists in the previous religious thread, however it just resulted in personal insults when the atheists couldn't argue any of the points theists made.

Going back a few pages in this thread, I made a perfectly acceptable argument on the issue of abortion. This was completely ignored. So why would I continue with people who can't intelligently debate and just resort to insults?

Are you aware that you are making provably untrue statements?

You write various things that show you do not understand even the basic concepts of the subject. Various people waste their time going through your posts piece by piece. You then claim that you're being ignored.

If you mean it, you're delusional.

If you don't mean it, you're lying.

Those are the only two options. If it was only once or twice then it would be possible that you simply missed the replies, but it's repeated over and over again.

Personally, I think you're a delusional propagandist who knows that lying often enough will wear reasonable people down and thus increase the political power held by you and the people you serve. But I'm not claiming that is a proven fact (unlike evolution, which is a proven fact). It's possible that you are unwell enough to believe what you're writing and it's possible that you're lying for your own amusement, i.e. trolling. What's not possible is that your statements are true because the evidence of their falseness is repeated over and over again - you are not being ignored. You're getting far more attention than you deserve.
 
Back
Top Bottom